More and more consumers are switching to Voice-over-IP (VoIP) for telephone service, such as Vonage™ or AT&T CallVantage™. FIG. 4 is a block diagram of a typical Voice over IP (VoIP) system. In the system of FIG. 4, a telephone 210, which may comprise a standard analog POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) telephone, is coupled to a Voice over IP adapter, such as the LINKSYS® RT31P2, popularly used by Vonage™ and other VoIP providers. Note that telephone 210 may also comprise a “soft” telephone, which may be implemented through a user's computer or the like
VoIP adapter 220 converts analog signals from telephone 210 into digital signals and transmits them over broadband Internet link 230. Broadband Internet link 230 may comprise a connection through a cable modem, DSL, fiber optic, T2, or other high-speed connection. Other connections, such as satellite uplinks may work, with some limited success. Dialup and other slow-speed connections may not work at all. Digitized signals from VoIP adapter 220 are received at servers at Voice-over-IP service provider 240, which may comprise Vonage™ or other VoIP telephone company. The digital signals are converted back to analog, and the call then routed to a call recipient 250 over an analog POTS line (if the recipient is not a VoIP subscriber) or sent digitally to the subscriber via the Internet in a similar manner in which the call was received.
These VoIP telephone companies have been very successful in providing a digital communications service which accurately emulates standard analog POTS service. Users can plug in existing analog telephones and even telephone systems and operate the equipment in a manner identical to POTS service, with no perceived artifacts or effects. However, users have reported problems when attempting to use VoIP with fax machines, modems, credit card “swipe” machines, and alarm systems.
Voice-over-IP service may impact the reliability of a security (alarm) system by interfering with its ability to report alarms to a consumer's monitoring station. Although Voice-over-IP services are excellent for voice communication, they may not be suited for transmitting alarm system data to an alarm monitoring company. As a result, many alarm monitoring companies simply do not accept customers who use Voice-over-IP. Some consumers report that their alarm systems will work with VoIP, while others have difficulty. On-line forums as such as the Vonage™ on-line forum have entire discussion forums related to such consumer difficulties. Thus, using an alarm system with VoIP service is a recognized problem in the art.
Prior Art security systems such as alarm, fire, and other system, typically dial a telephone number to report security events to a central station. Many owners of security systems also use Voice-over-IP (VoIP) services, such as Vonage™ VoIP or the like, which create a virtual phone network on top of broadband Internet technology. When an alarm system is used in conjunction with a typical Voice-over-IP service, the security system will dial a standard telephone number corresponding to the customer's alarm monitoring service. The Voice-over-IP service, in turn, will route this “virtual” phone call onto a standard telephone line, and re-dial the originally intended telephone number, thereby connecting the call.
Many users of alarm systems, credit card swipe machines, and the like, report problems when attempting to use such hardware with VoIP systems. The apparatus may dial the wrong number, or the system might not provide the proper bandwidth or signal clarity to properly send the necessary signals to the central station or dialed number. Similar problems can occur when using Prior Art fax machines and other communications devices (e.g., 56K dialup modems and the like) with VoIP networks.
These types of errors may occur due to multiple layers of translation back and forth between digital (Internet technology), and analog (telephone) system. As a result, alarm and other types of signals are frequently incorrectly received. For the VoIP provider, such concerns are important if the VoIP service is to be marketed as a replacement for standard POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) lines. One method of overcoming this problem has been to provide higher bandwidth lines specifically for such applications (e.g., dedicated fax line). However, such higher bandwidth lines require a consistently robust broadband connection and can slow down other users on the broadband connection. Thus, an alternative solution to such brute force techniques is required in the art.
In addition, even if an alarm system can be made to work with an existing VoIP telephone network, the system suffers from the same problem as Prior Art dialup service. Namely, when the alarm dials out, it seizes the phone line, making it impossible for the consumer to call out at the same time. In an emergency or even in the event of a false alarm, this can be frustrating or even dangerous. If the alarm is trying to dial out, and the consumer is trying to contact 911, each may end up blocking the other. The alarm will continue to try dialing out, which may in turn continue to block the consumer's repeated attempts to dial. In a false alarm scenario (where the consumer is trying to cancel the alarm) this may be merely frustrating. In a medical or other emergency, it may be disastrous.
Prior Art alarm systems are also limited in many regards in that by using dialup communications, they cannot be monitored in real time. If a burglar disables an alarm system, the alarm company may have no way of knowing the system is off-line. Many alarm systems are programmed to dial up the monitoring station once a day (or at another periodic interval) to report system status. If the status call is not received over a period of time, the consumer may be contacted to inform them their alarm is not operating properly. In practice, this may mean that 24 hours or more may elapse before a malfunctioning or disabled alarm is detected and reported.
Another problem with Prior Art alarm systems, which is not widely reported is that they are ridiculously easy to defeat. A burglar need only disconnect the POTS phone lines at the residence to prevent the system from reporting a break-in or other alarm. Most phone lines are conveniently located at the side of house and pass through a Network Interface Box (NIB). The phone lines may be disconnected easily at the box (by unplugging the RJ-11 jacks) or by simply cutting the wires. Once inside, the burglar can quickly disarm the alarm siren (e.g., by ripping it from the wall or disconnecting the wires) so that neighbors are not alerted.
Some alarm companies have tried to overcome this limitation by using wireless communications as the uplink for the alarm system. Such systems are fairly expensive and require that wireless service be available in the area. Wireless signals are subject, however, to electronic jamming and other forms of defeat (e.g., remove antenna). Moreover, many wireless systems also use the periodic status reporting technique and thus a disabled alarm may not be detected for hours or days.
Another drawback of Prior Art alarm systems is the inability of the consumer to perform remote self-monitoring of system status or remotely arm the system. The systems are generally programmed to only dial the alarm company and/or only the alarm company may dial into the system, the consumer has no idea what the status of the system is, other than what is reported verbally by the alarm company. Alarm systems are basically computer systems, and it would be advantageous if a consumer could access their alarm system and/or be advised of the status of their alarm system via telephone, computer, or the like.